DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-12-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 1-11 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (KR 2021074393) using [US 2022/0052382, as a translation] because as explained below, Peng et al. teaches that each of the additive can be used in the electrolyte solution and teaches the specified amount that can be used for each. It would have been obvious to use both sulfolane additive and 1,2-bis((difluorophosphino)oxy)ethane additive in the electrolyte solution taught by Peng et al. because it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose. The rejection of claim(s) 1-11 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (US 2014/0242472) in view of Yoo et al. (KR 2019-0140676, machine translation or US 2019/0379086) as explained above. Applicant argues unexpected results but claims 1-8 and 11 are drawn to an electrolyte comprising any organic solvent or any lithium salt with the specified two additives. Claim 9 does claim specified propionate-based solvents but does not claim the ranges that can be used. Claim 10 does claim the amount of propionate-based solvents but does not teach the solvents that are used. Therefore, the claims are not commensurate in scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (KR 2021074393) using [US 2022/0052382, as a translation]. Peng et al. teaches in claim 1 and claim 4, an electrolyte solution comprising an additive comprising a compound containing a sulfur-oxygen double bond such as a sulfolane
PNG
media_image1.png
77
80
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[teaching Chemical Formula 1, claims 1-2] in an amount of 0.01-10 wt%. Peng et al. teaches in claim 1 and claim 5, an electrolyte solution comprising an additive comprising a compound containing a P-O bond such as 1,2-bis((difluorophosphino)oxy)ethane in an amount of 0.01-3 wt% [teaching Chemical Formula 2, claims 1 and 4-7]. Peng et al. teaches on pages 8-9 and [0058 and 0060], where in some embodiments, the compound comprising a sulfur-oxygen double bond comprising a compound in amount of 0.01-10 wt% comprising sulfolane (II-7) or in [0064-0065], further comprising 0.1-3 wt% of a compound containing a P-O bond comprising 1,2-bis((difluorophosphino)oxy)ethane, etc. Peng et al. discloses the claimed invention as explained above except for specifically teaching that the additive comprises a compound comprising the sulfur-oxygen double bond comprising sulfolane and a compound comprising 1,2-bis((difluorophosphino)oxy)ethane compounds are both used in the electrolyte solution. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use both sulfolane additive and 1,2-bis((difluorophosphino)oxy)ethane additive in the electrolyte solution taught by Peng et al. because it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose. Peng et al. discloses the claimed invention as explained above except for specifically teaching that an additive comprising a compound comprising 0.25-0.5 wt%of the sulfur-oxygen double bond comprising sulfolane and an additive comprising 0.5-3 wt% of 1,2-bis((difluorophosphino)oxy)ethane in a mixing ratio of 0.5:1 to 10:1 or 0.5:1 to 5:1 by weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mixing ratio of sulfolane and 1,2-bis((difluorophosphino)oxy)ethane in an amount of 0.5:1 to 10:1 or 0.5:1 to 5:1 by weight because Peng et al. teaches using 0.25-0.5 wt% of sulfolane and 0.5-3 wt% of 1,2-bis((difluorophosphino)oxy)ethane and since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Peng et al. teaches in [0126-0128], an electrolyte solution comprising 1 M LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl propionate [teaching claims 8-9] and propyl propionate [teaching claim 10, 40 wt%] in an amount of 1:1:1:1:1 and teaches in Table 1, adding a sulfur-oxygen double bond compound and teaches in Table 3, adding a compound containing a P-O bond comprising 1,2-bis((difluorophosphino)oxy)ethane. Peng et al. teaches an electrochemical device comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator and the electrolyte comprising above [teaching claim 11].
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (US 2014/0242472) in view of Yoo et al. (KR 2019-0140676, machine translation or US 2019/0379086). An et al. teaches in Example 1, a battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and an electrolyte solution comprising LiPF6 in a solvent comprising ethylene carbonate [EC]: ethylmethyl carbonate [EMC] and dimethyl carbonate DMC in a volume ratio of 3:4:3 [teaching claim 11] and adding 1 wt% vinylene carbonate and 0.5 wt% of 3-methyl sulfolane [Formula 2 claimed in claims 1-2] and teaches in Example 4, that 5 wt% of 3-methyl sulfolane was used [claims 1 and 4-5]. An et al. teaches in [0038], that the organic solvent which is conventionally used in the electrolyte solution can comprise an ether, an ester, a linear carbonate, a cyclic carbonate or mixtures thereof where in [0040], where the cyclic compound can be ethylene carbonate and the linear carbonate may be, dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, etc. and teaches in [0043], that the ether solvent may be used as the organic solvent and may consist of methyl propionate [MP] or ethyl propionate [EP] [claims 8-9]. An et al. discloses the claimed invention except for specifically teaching that that the solvent comprises EC: EMC: (MP or EP) or EC: (MP or EP):DMC in a volume ratio of 3:4:3 instead of EC: EMC:DMC in a volume ratio of 3:4:3 as taught in the example [teaching claim 10]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use methyl propionate or ethyl propionate instead of the linear solvents ethylmethyl carbonate or dimethyl carbonate as the solvent because An et al. teaches that these solvents can be used in the electrolyte solution as explained above and one would expect therefore that these binder materials would function in a similar way and give similar results. [thus teaching claim 10]. An et al. discloses the claimed invention except for specifically teaching that that an additive such as
PNG
media_image2.png
47
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is added to the electrolyte solution in an amount of 0.1-5 wt %. Yoo et al. ‘676 teaches a battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and an electrolyte solution comprising Formula 2 because in order to improve battery performance through high capacity cathode active materials and to improve battery storage characteristics at high temperatures, sulfur based additives are added to the electrolyte but then the lifetime of the battery falls and the output performance of the battery falls. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the performance of the battery by adding to the electrolyte solution an additive comprising specifically Formula 2 such as additive shown in [0032],
PNG
media_image2.png
47
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in an amount of 0.1-5 wt% [teaching claims 1 and 6-7]. Yoo et al. teaches that the secondary battery electrolyte can further include additional additives such as propane sultone in an amount of 0.1-5 weight %. Yoo et al. teaches that the electrolyte solution comprises a solvent including carbonate, ester, ether, ketone, or in a mixed solvent and a lithium salt. Yoo et al. teaches in addition to the electrolyte solution, a propane sultone (PS) additive added is added to improve the high temperature storage and life characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use add an additive in an amount of 0.1-5 wt% comprising
PNG
media_image2.png
47
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in addition to the sulfur containing additive comprising propane sultone because Yoo et al. teaches adding the additive to an electrolyte solution improves a battery performance improving battery storage characteristics at high temperatures when sulfur-based additives are added to the electrolyte solution [teaching claim 3] and because it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pavel et al. (KR 2018-0036340, machine translation) teaches in Example 1, a battery comprising an anode, a cathode and an electrolyte solution comprising LiPF6 and a solvent comprising EC:DEC:EP in a volume ratio of 30:50:20 and adding 1 weight % of compound represented by formula (1-1)
PNG
media_image3.png
108
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and teaches in Example 2, further adding additional additives. Pavel et al. teaches in the abstract, an electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery comprising a compound represented by chemical formula 1,
PNG
media_image4.png
135
270
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, where A represents a substituted or unsubstituted aliphatic chain or (-CH2H4-O-C2H4-)n and where n is an integer of 1-10 which improves the life characteristics and durability of the lithium secondary battery. Pavel et al. teaches that the additive comprising the compound represented by formula 1 may be included in the range of 0.1-10 wt %, more specifically, the content of the compound may be 0.1-5 wt% or 0.1-1 weight %. Pavel et al. further comprise an additional additive in an amount of 0.1-15 wt%, selected from the group consisting of propane sultone, etc. but is not limited. Pavel et al. teaches that the organic solvent can comprise a carbonate-based, ester-based, ether-based, etc. with the ester solvent may include methyl propionate, ethyl propionate, propyl propionate, etc.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723